"As a man without much faith in students’ ability to debate differing
opinions, Horowitz makes an enormous fuss when some students are
willing to do so. At Reed College, he found the exception that “proves”
his rule: a historically liberal student body who, sadly for all
involved, took Horowitz at face value, believing Horowitz would
challenge Reed students with conservative rigor in a lecture. [my italics.]The bloom
came off the rose, however, once the actual debate regarding academic
freedom began, and Dean Peter Steinberger made his remarks. By
referencing Horowitz’s earlier publications on political framing, which
state the importance of co-opting liberal rhetoric for conservative
electoral gains, Steinberger attempted to expose Horowitz as the
political ideologue he is. Horowitz spends a chapter whining about how
rude and dismissive Steinberger’s remarks were, and highlights the
incident as an example of the narrow-mindedness and derision he says he
is faced with from academic liberals. He misses no opportunity to
mention the fact that for a time, he, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter
shared a bodyguard (though the image of the trio crouching together for
safety is priceless).

If there is anything at all to neo-Conservatism, then debate should be possible. I keep waiting for a conservative with reasonable arguments to show up on this blog. So far, no luck.

Comments

I have a "friend" who seems to be keen to take the Horowitz line about the decadence of the liberal arts. Unfortunately this man, who would put himself above all of those practising the liberal arts, is himself unwittingly inept at the LIBERAL ARTS lesson of constructing a rational argument. He is schooled in biology and simply cannot do this. In particular, he can't stick with the abstract conception of a particular theorist in order to find out what the theorist means by it, within a particular philosophy. Rather, he changes the word to mean whatever he thinks it means, thus unwittingly superimposing his own ideology over that of the theorist, and so missing the theorist's points. (He can't read theory.) He doesn't realise that he is even doing this. And yet he thinks that the humanities departments are corrupt.

Yes. That interchange between Horowitz and Steinberger is classic in showing a man who spouts off vs. a man who can construct rational arguments.
Horowitz is a know nothing who was recruited by the Rove cabal to do a number on higher education. He's failed at his mission and will shortly be out of a job, along with all his other wingnut pals.
We won.

Horowitz is a complete tool. The American public is fed up with people like him. Horowitz acts on orders from the neo-con cabal, which is on its way out.
Read this explosive piece by Glenn Greenwald and watch the video of those glossy pundits sneering at the idea that Rove will ever be brought to justice.
They're all going down together. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/26/matthews/index.html